A papal salvo

35 English and Welsh Bishops, the Scottish bishops weren't there.

It might be helpful to indicate that the Pope was responding to English and Welsh bishops who had clearly told him their views on the legislation; it wasn't a unilateral statement issued by the Pope.

That said, it's hardly unprecedented for the Pope to comment on other countries, any more than it would be unprecedented for the US or the UK to comment on the human rights failings of, say Iran, or China, or Zimbabwe.

Hardly accurate to describe the UK as a "Protestant State" - funny how the secularists aren't up in arms at The Times characterisation of the country.

"Its hardly unprecedented for the Pope to comment on other countries, any more than it would be unprecedented for the US or the UK to comment on the human rights failings of, say Iran, or China, or Zimbabwe."

In case you didnt notice, MCC, it is the UK who is promoting equality and human rights here and it is the Pope who is asking us to fight against it.

Although, in terms of the zeal with which we should fight, his missionary position is probably correct.

The UK is not promoting equality and human rights - it is attacking religious freedom, a right recognised and guaranteed by UN Declaration and Covenant, by the European Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Freedoms always involve a balancing, and the UK government has decided that gay rights are more important than religious rights. The Pope thinks there should be more balance.

Let me put it this way - do you think Stonewall would like to employ me? Do you think they should be forced to?

AAARRRGH! Cant be bothered with another hot cross bun fight with you, MCC.

Lets cut to the quick. Its all irrelevant.

The number of gay clergy is rising, as high as fifty percent in many countries. That trend will continue.

This legislation will become law.

The Pope will die (soon), and personally, I'll give him a warm hand on his exit.

You disagree.

Pax

I accept your surrender.

William

I notice you use the exact same photograph of the Pope on this thread as you do on the - Pope Benedict, Outrage, betrayal, shame - thread. Is there a dearth of photos in the BBC archives?

If so, here are some pics to bring the archives up to date.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phYyyYrfaeM

Anyone any idea on how this would work in NI where our equality legislation is in place?

I do not see that anyone is attacking religious freedom. The legislation, before it was amended, simply treated religions like every other employer in that they are not allowed to discriminate.

The churches objected to this because they want to maintain their ability to discriminate. It was not enough, however, to be able to discriminate only in those areas which were doctrinally sensitive, (for instance discriminate against women by banning them from certain jobs) they had to ensure that they were able to carry out discrimination across all their employment decisions. After all, making sure that the person doing the gardens is not gay is really important in the loving ministry of the church.

As for mcc being employed by Stonewall, there is nothing to bar mcc from employment there, the very point is that Stonewall does not have the special protection afforded to the churches. As long as mcc could carry out the job as specified in the job description against which they applied, then where would be the problem?

As far as the Popes words are concerned the problem is not his opinion on the UK's policies which is the unwarranted intrusion, it is his compunction, as the leader of a foreign power, for his bishops to actively work against the elected representatives of the UK to ensure that his policies and not those of the elected reps comes about. If this was simply another country trying to influence in this way, there would be an outcry. The Papacy has already been criticised by the Canadian government for seeming to imply that catholic MP's who did not comply with catholic doctrine, even when in direct opposition to their electorate, when voting in their parliament would be excommunicated.

Is there a word for when one country tries to subvert the democratic process of another without legal international approval?

I'm sorry. I don't see what the Pope said that prompted such outrage.

1)His argument is based on Natural Law, not Divine Commands. So he believes that it is based on beliefs that all reasonable persons can infer without divine illumination.
2)If the Pope had challenged the Death Penalty in the US no one would be quibbling about sovereign nations. This is because many people see the death penalty as an abuse of Human Rights. It's an issue above politics.
3)Should PETA be able to bar Helio and I from taking up jobs there? (We're genetically programmed to like meat etc.etc. You don't need me to spell out the arguments). Some organisations need freedom of conscience on controversial matters, or you just stifle debate. Maybe we should be talking about expanding that freedom, not removing it.
4) What exactly can the European Commission do? Especially as a new Conservative Government is likely to pick issues like this to tell it to mind it's own bees wax. You think that this is the issue that would cause other European States to vote us out of the EU?
And how can UK bishops influence the EC in any case? I think Benny's just stirring the pot. Gotta love the old rogue for that.

GV

Maybe the beeb could put up a few sudoku puzzles for us to play while we wait on the moderator?

Or how about space invaders?

Maybe the pope should paint a picture to make his point.

GV

1) His argument it not based on Natural Law, it is based on what he believes Natural Law should be. Why is it for him to decide the basis for Natural Law. This seems to be to be a very cynical attempt to grab the power to define Natural Law. If all reasonable people can infer his version of natural law without divine intervention then why do so many reasonable people not? Is it perhaps because he is biased by his religious beliefs? The problem is in your statement, that his natural law is based on a belief, his belief of what other people should think. Laws should not be based on beliefs, religious or otherwise.

2) My argument is not with him challenging or opining on another states laws, but on his active interference in the democratic system of another country. He directly actions his bishops to actively work to impose his churches belief on the democratic process in other countries. We already have one set of unelected bishops doing that in the UK, I think that is probably way too many. I don't see any issue above the law as defined through democratic politics.

3) Should PETA, or any other organization be allowed to ban you from taking up a job, no, not as long as you can fulfil the post. If you can do the job as specified even if it means encouraging or enabling others do do things you do not believe in then that is down to your conscience. You should be banning yourself from taking the job, just as I would not apply for a job as a priest.

4) The EU can fine the Government, instruct it to change the law, and if it refuses to do so, it can be fined every time someone decides to take a case of discrimination to it.

The UK Bishops, RC or CofE cannot, influence the EC, thankfully.

Now, now, RJB (# 6) - that was very naughty - stereotyping gays! ;-)

I do love the mozzetta though - just as well Peter Cook and Dudley Moore are no longer around!

"So long as you can do the job" - can people really work for an organisation while actively opposed to the organisation. Could I work for Stonewall while declaring that I think homosexual acts are sinful, and that it's a disordered psychological condition?

The thing with equality legislation is that it isn't about just labels - it's about making accommodation for different situations. So it's wrong to discriminate against someone for being homosexual or Catholic when you're hiring a mechanic, but maybe not when hiring a development officer for Stonewall or Catholic education. We allow beauty parlours to hire only women cos that seems to be okay. With disability it's not enough to say you don't discriminate while not providing adequate access or toilet facilities. The UK legislation is simply too inflexible and the result is a loss of religious freedom.

William - have you been following the story of the German family who recently were granted asylum in the USA - persecuted in Germany for home schooling (i.e. being Christians).

As for the right of the Pope to talk to his fellow bishops - do you guys get that the Pope is a Catholic and the Catholic Church isn't a national Church - that means the Pope has a role in your country whether you like it or not.

As someone else said, when he's condemning the death penalty or the war in Iraq it's all sweetness and light.

"William - have you been following the story of the German family who recently were granted asylum in the USA - persecuted in Germany for home schooling (i.e. being Christians)."

Oh duh, christian persecution syndrome on display by mccamleyc. Home schooling is not allowed in Germany, neither by christians nor by atheists. But you're not complaining about atheists not being allowed to do so, are you? German law doesn't favour or disfavour people with any particular beliefs or none in that sense, yet you manage to bend it into a Monty Python like 'Help, help, we're being repressed!'

Golfie

1) "Laws should not be based on beliefs, religious or otherwise." Then there wouldn't be any laws. Maybe you mean moral beliefs. But your arguments depend on me taking the notion of 'fairness' and 'rights' seriously. Which is a beliefs - and 'rights' are controversial. Some dispute the usefulness and coherence of the notion. (not me, but the debate's out there.

2)"His argument it not based on Natural Law, it is based on what he believes Natural Law should be." Yes. But in prinicple, because no article of faith is cited in his premises, anyone can show him that his premises are faulty, or that his conclusion doesn't follow from his premises. This isn't a "Bible tells me so, so it's true" kind of argument.

3) "his active interference in the democratic system of another country. He directly actions his bishops to actively work to impose his churches belief on the democratic process in other countries."
No - he asked them to enter a debate.

4) "If you can do the job as specified even if it means encouraging or enabling others do do things you do not believe in then that is down to your conscience...." yes, but even if I think I can do the job, PETA would be within their rights to infer otherwise.
And there's nothing some folk would like more than to cause mischief for PETA. They'd probably lie in a job interview to get the opportunity.

5) "The EU can fine the Government, instruct it to change the law, and if it refuses to do so, it can be fined every time someone decides to take a case of discrimination to it."

Which the UK can just ignore. Would the council then vote the UK out of the EU? Could a majority vote be achieved on this issue? Seems unlikely.

GV

GV

Well, this is yet another classic example of an abusive organisation claiming martyr status, and pretending that the victims of abuse are in fact the abusers. We've seen this all before - it's classic stuff, and what a heck of a lot of religion (of all its stripes) is based on. Poor me. I'm so oppressed. Build a bridge, Joe, and get over it.

I am concerned about the cost of the Pope's visit. Why is the UK Government going to pay £20 million for the Pope's visit? Why is it paying anything at all?

Ratzinger was a key figure in the cover-up for paedophile priests. He was in charge of the Vatican body which drew up the rules to ensure secrecy and to threaten victims and witnesses with excommunication if they made their accusations public: Crimen Sollicitationis.

When the Murphy Commission, investigating paedophile crimes in Catholic-run institutions in the Republic of Ireland, wrote to the Vatican, inquiring about the involvement of the hierarchy in the handling of paedophile cases and the cover-up, it received no reply. Despite the gravity of the crimes and the great feeling of outrage throughout the country, the Vatican ignored the inquiries from the Commission. It only replied weeks later, to say that it does not respond to correspondence unless from a Government. The arrogance of the reply merely added insult to injury.

Ratzinger has also denounced the use of condoms in countries where AIDS is epidemic, thereby condemning people to death from infection and helping to spread the disease.

He is homophobic. As George Broadhead, the Humanist gay rights campaigner, has said, "This pope has shown himself to be paranoid about homosexuality. His opposition to LGBT rights knows no bounds. He has declared that saving humanity from homosexual behaviour was as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. This must be the most outrageous and bizarre claim yet made by someone who has already got a well-deserved reputation as one of the most viciously homophobic world leaders on a par with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

"The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some £20m as the visit will be paid for by the Government not the Vatican. We therefore call on those opposed to this expenditure to sign this petition:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html."

This petition has been launched by the National Secular Society whose president Terry Sanderson said: 'We have a petition online where people can make clear their opposition to the state funding of this visit. If the Catholic Church wishes its leader to come here, it should pay for the visit itself.'

Please ask friends and colleagues to sign the petition.

oldredeyes,

Good of you to flag up the petition, but you had unfortunately included the closing dot in the link (and hence it doesn't work). People who want to sign the petition please go to

https://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html

mcc,
If you believe that homosexuality is a "disordered psychological condition" against all the evidence (from the psychologists) that it is not, then there is little point in a debate. It is rude to label someone as having a mental condition when there is none. Your belief that there is one is not a diagnosis.

Mind you, if homosexuals have this disorder, then they are much better protected under the legislation as there is no protection built in to allow the church to discriminate against disabled people. So in your scenario a gay person could become an employee of the church in any position. There is no need for any legislation to protect gay people as they are all disabled and already have full protection.

But I am glad you agree with the original bill that it is wrong to discriminate when hiring a mechanic, but OK when there is doctrinal sensitivity. This is the position of the original legislation passing through the Lords. The Bishops, however disagreed with you and fought to have the protection for them extended to cover all church employment, covering janitors etc.

He is homophobic. As George Broadhead, the Humanist gay rights campaigner, has said...

Oh, well, if you're going to produce irrefutable evidence like someone's opinion...

That said, I would like to know how the £20M is justified. **I'm not saying it can't be** But if that is an accurate figure I would be interested to know how it was arrived at, and what the government considers the general benefits to be. It's worth a public discussion, surely?

I'd also like to know how I can follow a direct link to a humanist petition, but not Gladys Ganiel's blog. I'm sure Peter K will agree that there's an inconsistency here.

GV

No point debating oldredeyes - totally closed mind.

It wasn't about janitors, mechanics or cleaners but about jobs in education, Catholic charities and youth work that require persons who are committed to the faith. UK wants to limit it to what happens in a church building.

As for visit, the PM invited the Pope on a State visit and the host country pays - thems the rules for State visits across the world.

As for disordered conditions, would you want a drug addict working in a pharmacy, an arsonist in match factory?

Germany - is there somehow good about a country not allowing home schooling, regardless of the reasons? It's an outrageous infringement on human rights. And it is primarily a religious rights issue because most homeschoolers are religious people who disagree with the State education system, intent on producing good little secular liberals.

Hello Graham,

If the link to the NSS petition site is repeated on several different threads (as Gladys did for her blog) and the posts are basically just that link and little else (as her removed post was), then the moderators might have been right to remove it. Then again, I have been less than impressed with the consistency of moderation on this blog.

And btw, while I think Gladys' main or maybe even sole purpose here was to advertise her own blog (she disappeared shortly after linking to her blog several times and getting censored for it the last time, several posters addressed posts to her she didn't bother replying to), I was not the one to complain about her posts. I don't know why you mention me specifically in your post?

PK
I only mentioned you as we agree on the inconsistency of moderation (it just seems random at times), and to show that I've no problem with the attention you've drawn to the NSS petition and giving the link.
I can't see why it shouldn't be up on several threads, as long as they all deal with the Pope's visit, or the NSS. You may have a point on posts that just advertise blogs and nothing else.

GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

In post 21 G Veale quoted my comment "He is homophobic. As George Broadhead, the Humanist gay rights campaigner, has said..." and added, "Oh, well, if you're going to produce irrefutable evidence like someone's opinion..."

I referred to George Broadhead because I agreed with his comment, namely, "He [Ratzinger] has declared that saving humanity from homosexual behaviour was as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. This must be the most outrageous and bizarre claim yet made by someone who has already got a well-deserved reputation as one of the most viciously homophobic world leaders on a par with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe."

I still agree with Broadhead. What Ratzinger said was ridiculous. So the question is: do you agree with Ratzinger? Is homosexuality a threat to humanity on a par with the destruction of the rainforest? Perhaps you would care to offer some evidence yourself then, to justify your point of view.

This man has-

- Overseen one of the most obnoxious cover ups in the history of the Church.

- Refused to even debate the role of women in the Church.

- Scratched the backs of obscenely rich businessmen in Opus Dei, took their money to bail out the Vatican and in return, with JPII, accorded them a special prelature. (Not even the most intellectualy challenged Christian would argue that he and Jesus have a different outlook when it comes to money.)

- Insulted Islam indirectly causing the deaths of two priests and one nun and numerous attacks on Catholic Churches across the globe. At the very least, his comments were 'unwise.'

- Awarded Rupert Murdoch a Papal Knighthood. A scandalous decision (although Murdoch did give the Diocese of San Francisco £6m.)

- Absolutely embarrassed Catholics and insulted Jewish people around the world by welcoming a KNOWN holocaust denier back to the Church with his obnoxious cronies.

- Taken the agenda of these schismatics (The Tridentine Mass) and forced clergy to implement it against the majority's will.

- Single handedly decided to dismantle Vatican II Council obviously making the unilateral decision that it actually wasnt guided by the Holy Spirit after all.

- Overseen hundreds of thousands if not millions of Catholics walk away from their faith and commented that, "The Church must grow smaller in order to 'purify' itself.

- Started a major fight with the world's nuns about how their orders are run which, thankfully, the nuns are not going to take and are presently refusing to fill in the questionaire they were sent.

- And at the moment, (something which you might like to do a piece on, William,) is forcing through a return to the English used in the pre-Vatican II form of the Mass. There is huge outrage being expressed about this at the moment and a groundswell of ordinary Catholic people who will not conform.

This man has done more than any other Pope that I can remember to hurt, alienate and bully ordinary Catholics around the world. The morale of the clergy and religious has never been so low. Persecution normally came from outside the Church, not from its leader!!

He has this track record and then feels he has the right to start telling democratically elected governments what legislation they may or may not pass.

He has lived all his adult life with people kissing his ring. He has obviously lost all notion of reality and certainly doesnt understand the word 'arrogance.'

Pardon me for yawning there at the endless repetition of baseless charges.

Oldredeyes - you said "He [Ratzinger] has declared that saving humanity from homosexual behaviour was as important as saving the rainforest from destruction." Let's have the quote - find it and link to it.

Jellybean - "forcing through a return to the English used in the pre-Vatican II form of the Mass". That's a good one - find me an example of Mass celebrated in English prior to Vatican II.

MCC

Dont you want the links to my list?

Oh I forgot, I provided you with them before and you claimed, media anti-Catholic conspiracy, loony left websites, blatant lies, people with questionable backgrounds and most hilariously and sadly of all regarding Ratz's cover up of abuse, "He just wanted to know what numbers were involved!!"

Vatican II didnt happen at 3 o'clock on a Tuesday, MCC. As you know it was over a period of years. The Council decided that it might be an idea to allow people to pray in a language they could actually speak and understand. Ratzinger is now forcing Catholics to go back to a version of English alien to them or worse still, back to Latin. Thems the choices.

It should sound quite nice. Empty churches have a lovely echo.

Oh yeh, and anyone who comments critically on the Church and the direction it is taking is also out for 'personal publicity.' Interesting comment from someone who runs their own personal website.

Hi McCamleyC, you say: "Freedoms always involve a balancing, and the UK government has decided that gay rights are more important than religious rights. The Pope thinks there should be more balance."

In contrast perhaps to the Pope's approach here, there was an interesting take on gay rights/religious freedom by the Evangelical Alliance in the Republic of Ireland back in December -- basically they came out in favour of the government approach to the legislation. Since links seem to be a no-no on this blog I won't publish a link to the EA statement (available on the Evangelical Alliance Ireland website, you can google it), but I think this paragraph from the statement sums up a fairly sensible approach that Christians (Catholic, Protestant, whatever) can take when it comes to putting their views forward in a plural society,

'Evangelical Christians have no automatic right to have their views preferred to those of others. Nor do we have a duty to try and impose Biblical morality on public life by force of law. We are in a new social situation in which the religious identity markers are losing their meaning in a non-religious society. But why should we be afraid? If we are called to live as a minority in a society that no longer pays Christianity any particular respect then so be it. The early church lived in such a society and flourished. Christian churches live in such socieities today and thrive.'

By the way, sorry if I have missed any questions directed to me on this blog ... been away doing research for most of the last couple of weeks and not online all that much.

Am I missing any settings on this blog that allow you to receive emails about a post you have been following? Thanks ...

Jellyboy - not sure what the "personal publicity" ref is about. Did I say that? Maybe I did, sounds like something I might say.

If you're going to talk about empty churches and the cause - well lets compare pre-Vatican II and post. Of course there is the danger of - post hoc ergo propter hoc - but still. It is crytal clear that Latin liturgy did not stop people attending Mass and the vernacular has not encouraged attendance.

By the way, I have no gra for the Extraordinary Form. I don't think it does any harm and I think the Church should be free enough to allow it and no one is forced to go. But I do think the Pope is correct that a more organic evolution of the liturgy would have been far better than what we got. As you know, preserving Latin was one of the recommendations of Vatican II and, having travelled a lot, I would like that we had preserved some of the common parts of the Mass. But back to the issue - I still can't see how you can say the Pope is making people use an English form of Mass that was in fact never used. The only English Mass there has been is the 1969 Pauline Missal, which was a rush job and a bad translation in parts. Of course people are used to it - but really, you should try and be a bit more open minded about embracing change - be a bit more like me.

The 'personal publicity' comment comes from your own mouth, MCC. Your response to a man who made the point that the Church expends a lot of time, energy and money trying to enforce nuns to obey Rome, make backward changes in the liturgy, de-refurbish churches and make priests wear little plastic white bits.

On the other hand, it has spent exactly £0, in comparison, on trying to make our Church a safe place for its most vulnerable members - its children. He was asking genuine questions about 'priorities.'

When the individual made these, I think, very salient points, you accused him of seeking personal publicity. Does that jog your memory?

Why dont you have a quick look at the "new" Mass and tell me where it is groundbreaking, good English, good translation? (Never mind inspiring.)

It is simply another blatant move by Ratzinger to impose his agenda on millions of people, driving a wedge between priests, Bishops and lay people.

People who have no axe to grind on these issues need only look back at some of your posts on this blog to see what is happening in our Church. Your triumphalism "God bless the Pope, the great the good", your sneering at Christians of other denominations (arrogantly laughing at them because they dont use the same Bible as us), your demolition job on a clergyman because he didnt happen to be trussed up in a lace alb, your obvious delight in gossipng about clergy with your pals after Mass - these are just off the top of my head.

We should be in a position where as brother Catholics we are BOTH proud of our Church and the many good and diverse parts there are in it. Instead, we are absolutely divided and in schism in every way but name. Instead, people like me are appalled at the utter lack of gospel emanating from Rome, at our Church haemorrhaging good people while you, and others like you, sneer and laugh at what you obviously think is some sort of game.

Please dont give me the argument about the numbers of bums on seats was higher pre-Vat II. It was a different society then. Are you trying to say it was uplifting to hear peoples names read out from the pulpit for not giving as much as the priest wanted them to give in the plate? (Strange, they never did that bit in Latin did they?!!) The Church cant rule by terror or bullying any more, the Hell bit cuts no ice. Churches where the priest speaks English, speaks common sense and preaches the Gospel are full. Latin and outdated English and emphasis on dogma will result in our Churches becoming furniture exhibitions.

I say again, the morale of the clergy has never been so low and instead of the Pope trying to ease their burden, as a loving father would, he has accentuated it by empowering every nut job in a parish who wants to make an issue of the priests clothes, the way he gives out communion, what kind of altar servers he has, who the eucharistic ministers are etc.. etc.. etc.. Is it any wonder they hit the bottle? (Lol Did you ever wonder what it must feel like to wake up miserable and hung over knowing that you have to go out and say Mass and face someone like YOU in the congregation knowing that no matter what you say or do will be gossiped about or maybe even put on a website? Pass the whisky!!)

African seminaries are full - a ticket to Europe and the USA. Eastern European seminaries which are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun are bursting. These are our future parish priests. If you cannot see the damage this is going to do, you are blind.

I was like you, MCC. Then I grew up.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

Of course if only the priests would celebrate the holy sacrifice of the Mass "ad orientem" they wouldn't have to face someone like me at all.

Do you ever try lightening up, jellytot? Put on an old dvd, The Song of Bernadette or the Nun's Story - or maybe even The Cardinal - and just enjoy belonging to the one true Church for a change.

As I said, your triumphalism honks.

Nice to see you back Gladys.

I see the hot cross buns weren't decommissioned! Not a Unionist in the land will be surprised!!!(-;

I see RJB, is a Frank Zappa fan.

I see we have to start all posts with I see.

GV - Dont tell him but I'm soaking my hotcross buns and putting them in the freezer before I chuck 'em.

JD - Two posts for a total of nine words. Are you on a sponsored silence, my friend?

Gladys #31

Boys a dear, that's a good quote from EAI. I haven't been able to find the article on their website (go on, take a risk, post the link, see what happens; I once had a post removed for adding a quote which was too long, you got of lightly!!:-))

Anyway, good quote; it appears to be a rather wise understanding of the interaction between church and state, something, perhaps, we in Northern Ireland could learn from.

I only thought, you liked Frank Zappa, for a man of the world.
Dear,dear, you don't know who Frank Zappa IS, Honestly, really, having read your posts to Christian Calvinist, you told him to leave his Bible and go out and sow his oats and you Don't even know who Frank Zappa IS.
I can't Believe it, a man of the world who doesn't know who Frank Zappa IS.
Now, don't be googling him?.
ps, next you will be telling me, you don't know who Mary Jane IS.

John

????????????????????

Now, now, what did I say on witchy thread, please stop making claims about me which I dont make for myself. "A man of the world!!" When did I make this latest assertion about myself.

Please read again my (brief) exchange with CC. I didnt order him to do anything. I did hint from afar that a broader spectrum might be of benefit. I then watched as some very decent men on here tried to gently reach him but it was obvious he wasnt ready for their words (or mine.) I guess that there was a real sorrow on here that a young lad like CC seems to be heading down a path which he may regret in later years. That's just a guess though.

I do know who Mr Zappa is, but not well enough to make a connection as to what you are getting at.

Here are some things you can quote me on about myself in future threads since you seem to be obsessed with putting words in my mouth. "I'm at times a very weak man, I've done stupid things in my life, there's certainly an anger inside me which I struggle constantly with, I'm loud when I should be quiet, I'm no expert on the Bible, I hurt and I have hurt others, I would like to be loved, I'm not sure at all whether Jesus is real, I dont know where I'm going and worry about what the future holds for me."

Feel free to quote me on any of that, John, because they are the only things I know for certain are true. The rest is just my opinion (and your projection.)

Seriously Now, have you ever thought off changing Churches to maybe the COE or even COI.
By the way, it was only a silly joke about Frank Zappa, even though, I do know who he is and sadly know his sister mary jane in the early 80s along with mr Alcohol and mr Bigot and his cousin, mr Sectarian.

Lastly, I DO NOT, WANT TO GLOAT EVER AT YOUR WEAKNESS NOR WOULD I WISH YOU TO BE IN ANY BOTHER WITH YOUR CHURCH OR FOR THAT MATTER WISH YOU ANY HARM, as I thought you were used to debating certain things, if I have offended you or caused you any anger over some uneducated remarks, PLEASE FORGIVE ME, thank you for taking YOUR time in even speaking to me on your level. as it is appreciated, God Bless U always.

MCC

"Ad Orientem"

Why the fixation with the orientation of the clergy?
Dont know if I'd be very happy about you breathing down my neck.

post 35... To say that the roman church is the 1 only true church is only your opinion and I think it is a bit conceited in the light of its bloody history and constant child sex scandals.

Bit of a humour dedicit on this site sometimes

Thanks for the welcome back, Graham.

Peter Morrow, The document can be found on the right hand side of the Evangelical Alliance (Republic of Ireland) website. The direct address (I will risk it!) for the Evangelical Alliance document is here, [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

The EA also has a reflection paper based on the various responses they got back, available here, https://evangelical.ie/docs/Reflection%20on%20the%20Response%20to%20the%20EAI%20Statement%20on%20Civil%20Partnerships.pdf

Good example of debate internal to the Republic's evangelical movement ...

Looks like Gladys posted that link!

And the moderator launched a salvo :-)

Maybe we should add some graffiti to a nearby wall: No link here!

Peter Morrow, Yes, I tried to give you the link for the Evangelical Alliance documents. I won't post a direct link, but you can google the Evangelical Alliance in the Republic of Ireland and look on the right-hand side of their webpage. That's where you'll find their doc about civil partnerships, as well as a reflection document on the comments they received about it.

This all relates to two of the segments on Sunday Sequence this morning -- one on the UK equality issue and the other on the seeming lack of debate in the Republic on the civil partnerships. The interesting point was made that the Catholic Church in the Republic hasn't really been to the fore in this (lack of) debate. There was an interview with Fr Tim Bartlett, who takes an entirely different view from the Evangelical Alliance on the matter.

Gladys, thanks for trying that link again. I've no idea why it was moderated; it seemed to me to be quite on topic, but some things 'stick', and some don't.

Anyway, I found the statement and read it.

What struck me most about it was what seems to be the clear understanding by EA RoI that we no longer live in an exclusively 'Christian' society and that we most certainly no longer live in societies which assume 'Christian' morality and seek to incorporate that morality into law. In realising this they have obviously sought to wrestle with the question, 'how should 'biblical', or 'traditional' Christians respond?'

It seems to me that there have been a variety of Christian responses to this. Some seem to think that civil law should be 'Christian', that we should be a 'Christian' nation. Some that Christians' 'rights' ought to be protected in law. Some appear to take the view that protest is what the church is called to, that in some way Christians ought to 'defend biblical standards' by condemning what is wrong and by 'separating' from the world.

For me, there are a number of problems with these responses. First of all they fail to recognise that society is changing, it is increasingly secular, and, even, anti religion, and rather than responding in the context of this new worldview churches are continuing to respond with the eyes of Christendom, not realising that Christendom is gone. (and in my view that is a good thing)

Secondly in responding in these ways 'Christianity' becomes reduced to a matter of moral issues and Christians run the risk of becoming mere moralists rather than people of faith who learn what it means to live in a secular world and seek its good while also being different from it. A further trouble with moralism is that it sets up an 'us and them' mentality, which, sooner or later, boils down to a 'we're good, they're bad' approach to life.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the Christian church continues to think that it has an automatic 'right' to be heard, to be protected, personally I don't think it does and it has to figure out how it is going to respond in a society which might become more intolerant of it. In my experience most churches haven't even noted the possibility. (and some apparently seem to think that a new hall and a upbeat programme of events is a solution!)

Evangelical Alliance RoI may well have been condemned on the basis of supporting the Civil Partnership Bill, but in calling the church to "incarnate and commend an alternative way of living as followers of Jesus", it seems to me to have grasped the essence of what it means for the church to live in an increasingly secular age.

Peter Morrow,

I think that's a sound analysis. EAI certainly seem to be taking the 'resident aliens' approach to Christianity as expoused by Stanley Hauerwas. This is both a practical and a principled position, I believe.

Peter and also Gladys.

I want to seperate this issue from homosexuality entirely in order to query what you have written.


Peter you said;-

Evangelical Alliance RoI may well have been condemned on the basis of supporting the Civil Partnership Bill, but in calling the church to "incarnate and commend an alternative way of living as followers of Jesus", it seems to me to have grasped the essence of what it means for the church to live in an increasingly secular age.


Peter, we have discussed the incarnational issue before but you dont appear to have taken on board in any way a further reasonable position to the ones you present.

It is entirely biblical, to be an incarnational, positive and gracious Christian whose identity is not centralised on protesting or moralising and yet who can make reasonable arguments as to why biblical principles would benefit society.

CARE is just such an organisation as indeed is EA UK which I understand takes quite a different stance on this particular issue to EA Ireland.

The Clapham Sect was another, from which Wilberforce came. They were responsible for a raft of varied legislation which we all take for granted today, in relation to child labour and animal rights etc, for example.

What do you think William Wilberforce and co might have said to you if you had urged him to stop trying to impose his Christian beliefs on Parliament, when he argued for the abolition of slavery and the other issues mentioned?

Seriously what do you think he would have said?

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a single one of your valid criticisms of some Christians would stick to Wilberforce, CARE or EA UK.

On the contrary, they would very much feel they were neglecting a key part of their incarnational call if they withdrew from gracious public debate and lobbying on many subjects, including sexuality related legislation.

An important part of incarnational life is also being salt and light, I would remind us.

And back to the subject in hand, I would ask if you and Gladys have any idea how ego-dystonic Christian homosexuals in the republic of ireland might feel about EA Ireland's position on this matter?

edo-dystonic homosexuals are those who wish to be rid of their same sex attraction fyi - a condition recognised by the WHO and which counsellors are ethically obliged to treat.

One org run by them for them is;-
https://www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/

They are even more discriminated and persecuted across society and the media than other members of the gay community. Any thoughts about them?

Are you aware of this? Are you interested? Do you care? If you do what action will you take to take account of them in your thoughts and actions and words on this matter?


You are also completely ignoring the facts that national mainstream churches and organisations like those mentioned see in the latest legislative moves in the UK a very real threat to them.

Just because you resolve to declare only affirmation to the world at large do you think it is going to stop actual attacks on other Christians? That is hardly a biblical picture.

Individual Christians have already been drawn through the courts and media on the same issues in the UK.

If one part of the body hurts, doesnt the rest of the body care??

It is my impression that your fully justifed concerns Peter have caused an overreaction from you that has pushed you away from a biblical balance on secular-sacred attitudes.

It appears to me that many Christians have been knocked off-balance by reactionary Christians and now veer over to a position where it is a top priority to affirm the world as often as possible.

I agree this is certainly much more attractive position than reactionary fundamentalism - but is it truly the primary calling of Christians to affirm affirm affirm .....and....nothing else?

CARE and EA UK certainly wouldnt see it that way, on a wide variety of issues.

I sense in all this an unbiblical detente which seeks to only affirms the world but shrinks from gracious disagreement when the Spirit urges otherwise.

I dont think this is actually a biblical balance.

Interested in your thoughts.

OT

OT

Are you an ego-dystonic homophobe?

OT

We meet again! That reminds me of Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty, (I shall play the role of the Professor if it helps!) Please laugh, it is meant in good humour.

You say, "I want to separate this issue from homosexuality entirely in order to query what you have written." Good, I'll do that too as the issue facing the church is much, much broader.

You also say, "It is entirely biblical, to be an incarnational, positive and gracious Christian whose identity is not centralised on protesting or moralising and yet who can make reasonable arguments as to why biblical principles would benefit society.” I agree.

The last paragraph of the EAI statement reads, "It is possible to both articulate and live Christian values in a way that contributes to the debate on the lost point of moral reference in public life." That seems very similar to your comment.

The final sentence of that paragraph is, "I that arena (public life) it is up to us to argue and show that the way of following Jesus is the most attractive, the most intellectually coherent and the most life-giving way of all."

The point I particularly noted in the statement (ref #51 paragraph beginning, "What struck me most about it....") is that EAI appear to have quite clearly grasped the prevailing change in the mood of society. They appear to have grasped that Christendom has gone. Let me take that idea a little further.

Many of the benefits that our churches have received (and continue to receive) in terms of finance, public position, respect and so on have been the direct result of being part of what has generally been termed a 'Christian nation'. (not an idea I like). Our nation no longer thinks this way and what the secular equality culture means, at the very least, is that the Christian voice is only one among many. Indeed it might be argued that the secular society of which we are part isn't actually listening to the church at all, and doesn't want to. Now, how ought the church to respond?

The feeling I get is that much of the church (and I'm talking about the average congregation, not particular groups) seeks a kind of sentimental return to the past, a church at the heart of the nation. People keep talking about wanting fuller congregations, or more at the prayer meeting. It's the language of the past. We no longer live in a 'Christian nation', period. Others seem to think that Christian morality can be imposed by law. Others seem to think we should withdraw and build safe sub-cultural hiding places for ourselves. Yet others want 'equality' for the church. But don't they see what that means in a secular society? In arguing for 'equal treatment' for themselves they cannot then deny 'equality' to others. It doesn't work that way! That isn't equality, that's preferential treatment.

There is an alternative however, and Gladys mentions it in the term 'resident aliens'. (I have no idea though if it is a view she holds, that is unimportant) My point is that the church is going to have to face up to the fact that it can no longer rely on the benefits of a cosy relationship between church and state, that it ever did is a problem in the first place. The church is going to have to figure out what it is now that it is excluded and we're more than a pressure group.

I'll put it another way, when it comes to the church and the gospel, it's my guess that those of a secular view already know what we're against and what EAI seem to be saying is that perhaps it's time people saw what we are for.

OT another thought.

You mention Wilberforce. Wilberforce was seeking to "impose his Christian beliefs" on a 'Christian' Parliament.

He was operating within Christendom. Now I don't mean by that that every member of the nation was a Christian, what I mean is that the nation generally recognised Christianity as the worldview by which we are to govern society. That is not now the case.

Put it this way, to whom are Christians today appealing when they seek 'equality' for the Christian faith?

To whom are they appealing when they seek to establish a Christian moral outlook in society?

The point is that the church is being increasingly marginalised and we haven't (at a popular level) figured out how to be the church in a new context. Goodness, we haven't even considered what we're going to do if we loose our tax exempt charitable status! (and we will, sooner or later)

Every State and nation and society has a prevailing ideology or belief system or set of values, call it what you will. Thing is, some people seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with the notion of a Christian society/nation/State and something just perfectly honky dorey with having a secular/liberal/atheistic society/nation/State.

Countries were/are Christian when the majority of the people want them to be and enshrine certain things in their Constitutions. The problem I have with liberals/secularist/atheists is they tend to want to change things without using democracy and without changing the Constitution. That's why they are so fond of international courts.

Hello mccamleyc,

It's very easy to come up with examples that are the very opposite of what you describe, i.e. christians imposing their minority views on both non-christians and other christians.

Take for example the assisted suicide bill that was killed in the House of Lords in 2007. It was very moderate, allowing assisted suicide only for terminally ill patients in severe pain. There was broad public support for the bill, as there still is . The bill passed the lower chamber and seemed it would pass in the Lords too. Until the bishops in the Lords started a lobbying campaign against the bill that was their strongest in ages. And they were successful.

Given that 2/3 to 3/4 of people in the UK support assisted suicide in some cases, this means that rejecting the bill was not only a matter of the bishops deciding what is good for those who don't share their christian views, but for a sizeable portion of other christians too. So the charge of secularists not wanting to use democratic means to impose their views on society seems awfully rich.

Peter - the bill was defeated in the legislature. Now you can argue that the UK legislature, with its house of lords isn't democratic - wont' get any argument from me on that one, but on the issue - good example of how courts are used to try and change the law by trying to force the DPP to state when he wouldn't prosecute someone for something that is illegal.

As for the suggestion that the public support this - well it depends how you ask the questions - that's why we have representative democracy and not just a series of referendums. If parliament went with the public mood we'd still be hanging people.

Seems we agree then that the intervention by the bishops was a case of a small group of christians imposing their views on everyone through an undemocratic process. Though it seems to me that was the outcome you were trying to spin your way out of, rather than endorse.

Peter Morrow, yes I do fancy myself a 'resident alien.' :)

Orthodox Tradition, your Wilberforce example is an interesting one:

"What do you think William Wilberforce and co might have said to you if you had urged him to stop trying to impose his Christian beliefs on Parliament, when he argued for the abolition of slavery and the other issues mentioned?

Seriously what do you think he would have said?"

Putting aside the question of whether Wilberforce was operating in a Christendom situation, I would have thought a huge part of his agenda was convincing people that slavery was indeed contrary to biblical teaching (after all, the bible was used to support slavery in a similar way as it is used to oppose homosexuality today).

Now, I am in no way saying that EAI is going to start using the bible to argue in favour of homosexuality per se, as opposed to its position on this particular bill.

But there are some Christians out there today who are making that argument. They sincerely think that it is a Christian imperative to defend the rights of a marginalised group like the LGBT community.

Outside of a Christendom model there is still room in the public square for those today who make an argument like EAI, AND for those who a la Wilberforce would say that the bible should be re-interpreted for LBGT rights in much the same way that Wilberforce said the bible should be re-interpreted to end the slave trade.

Peter - I think a small group of Anglican bishops and others of a more rational and consevative bent, managed to get a majority in the Lords. Them's the rules.

The UK is really a bad example, though, since it is so undemocratic. If you take Ireland, you have a legislature that is packed with secular liberals - the makeup in no way reflects the population - but that's what you get with party political elections. and that's why we have constitutions which can only be changed by the people, so that fundamental issues can only be changed by the people.

In Ireland we have a Constitution that clearly acknowledges the role of God, and the preamble makes it clear that by God we mean the Holy Trinity. But we also have religious freedom and no State Church, unlike England and Scotland and anyone can become head of state, irrespective of religion. If people don't like that then there are democratic and lawful ways to change it. We could remove all the references to God and religion and be like Albania in the 1970s.

Peter, Gladys

Pete, you and both I know those are all v thin arguments. Nervous jokes dont hide it.

IN actual fact I think you have got Wilberforce very very wrong.

After many years failing in his anti-slavery campaign he took a break and wrote a book on what he saw as true Christianity, lambasted at length the nominal Christianity of his day that populated his country and opposed him; Wilberforce was not preaching to the converted by any means. I think Gladys may be alluding to the act that she understands all of this when she suggests putting the issue to one side, but I dont think that is helpful to an open discussion.

You both argue from many authorities, but not from the NT, it appears.

Gladys may I ask what authority you place on the bible and do you believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ as the Son of God? I feel it would be helpful to understand what assumptions you are arguing from.


Some questions;-


1) Did Christ challenge the unjust use of laws against powerless Jews?

2) Does loving your neighbour and God entail arguing for good Goverment and laws, if you have the reasonable opportunity to do so?

2 b) Are you aware that evangelicals in Japan, a tiny minority, had a major hand in doing just this in rewriting much of their legal system, according to Operation World? Were they acting anti-biblically?

3) Does the New Testament give grounds for forbidding the use of such opportunties?

4) Does the NT give grounds for actively endorsing behaviour you believe to be contrary to NT values? Are you aware of the passages where it teaches that we should not?

5) Does the bible argue for using all opportunities to help the people of God. I'm partly thinking the story of Esther here ;-)


Peter, do you really think CARE and EA UK are arguing for preferential treatment?

There is plenty of room for exemptions to allow "both sides" to live freely at present but the Government and its lobbyists are determined not to allow freedom of conscience to believers if they can manage it.

Otherwise Christian adoption agencies would not have been forced to abide with same-sex legislation without any consideration given to the fact that same-sex couples had plenty of other agencies to adopt from.

Likewise, it would not be preferential treatement to allow a clause whereby employees could be excused from, as they see it, endorsing same sex relations, if there were other employees able to facilitate them.

Of course individuals are now exploiting such legislation to target businesses and groups run by Christians, as we know, pressing for criminal prosecutions and also pressing to have people sacked in sometime ridiculous cases. What is your advice to such victims? Meditate and listen to music - your enemies are simply participating in a public square debate and you are a resident alien who should take it like a saint?

But you guys dont wince when the body of Christ hurts. Do you???

Possible reasons? You are not part of the body; you are asleep; the other Christians are not actually being hurt; they are not actually part of the body.

Which one is the best answer?



You seem determined not to hear contrary arguments Peter. You say people know what we are against but not what we are for.

Would you honestly define CARE as reactionary? Have you ANY understanding of how positive and proactive its many ministries have been?

In any event, should evil be allowed to prosper when... good men dont wish to be seen as negative?


The implications of your arguments appears to be that Christians are not called of God into elected and legislative politics, or if they are they should not let their faith inform their careers. That is just not biblical. period.

As we know, there are many Christians across the UK who see their positions as MPs as faith callings.

Further implications are that CARE is acting anti-biblically in facilitating the church at large from participating in democracy. Should Christians withdraw from this and stop voting?


Finally Gladys, more than happy to engage with you about your argument for Christians lobbying for LGBT rights.

But two problems.

1) Neither Peter nor you have addressed the issue of ego-dystonic homosexuals at all. Should the church endorse their search for recognition and state support for counselling in line with their wishes (an ethical obligation on counsellers)? All of this is increasingly under attack by sectional interests in the health sector and politics.

2) Gladys, (and Peter) I find it very hard to understand how you can argue in support of Christians supporting civil partnerships on the one hand.... but then find it unbiblical for Christians to be involved in politics.


That really seems to sum up the oddity of the situation. EAI have entered the public square to support civil partnerships and you guys have applauded them but argued that other Christians with contrary views should not enter the public sphere ....unless they wish to argue for the emancipation of the LGBT community.

I know Peter believes what he is arguing (increasingly thinly) but I cant help but think Glady is just having a laugh here; I dont know her as yet.

OT

sorry if that was a multiple post - each time I logged it it disappeared - good job too I hear PM say!

OT

Perhaps this sentence expresses one of the differences between your view and mine and the main trust of the point I've been making on this thread.

"The implications of your arguments appears to be that Christians are not called of God into elected and legislative politics."

I'm not saying never, OT, many Christians are involved in all sorts of civic public service.

However what I am saying is that in a context where a secular revolution is taking place the church needs to face up to the fact that it no longer has the civic influence it once had. Does that mean it shouldn't lobby, I haven't said that; does it mean it shouldn't ever be part of politics; I haven't said that, what I am trying to say and have tried to say is that the church has an identity beyond government, as the EAI statement says,

"Evangelical Christians have no automatic right to have their views preferred to those of others. Nor do we have a duty to try and impose Biblical morality on public life by force of law. We are in a new social situation in which the religious identity markers are losing their meaning in a non-religious society. But why should we be afraid? If we are called to live as a minority in a society that no longer pays Christianity any particular respect then so be it. The early church lived in such a society and flourished. Christian churches live in such societies today and thrive."

That simply doesn't translate to me or Gladys not caring for others, OT, it just doesn't. EAI have grasped something important about the context in which we live. It's all very well standing for what we presume to be biblical values, but why ever should we expect a secular government to grant such equality? I'm not saying we shouldn't have a voice, I'm asking what we shall do when we don't have a voice. And I'm not saying any of the organisations you mentioned are wrong, I simply didn't say that.

That's part of what is encapsulated in 'resident aliens'. What song are we going to sing in this 'strange land' to use another EAI and biblical metaphor. (and there are many biblical references OT and NT which could be given) Shall our song be, 'Equality for the people of God'? Personally I think there is another song we can sing, and it is a song we can sing whatever the prevailing mood, whether we Christians have influence or whether we are marginalised and persecuted.

It's an old Larry Norman reference, but we can sing the song of salvation. We can sing of mercy, of love, of forgiveness. We can sing the song of Jesus. We can sing it in word and deed. We can sing it to friend and enemy. We can sing it to those who persecute us, to those who use us. These are the only things which change my heart.

I am simply suggesting that it is a song we need to learn to sing. This isn't about the LGBT issue. I entered this thread on the basis of the EAI quote given by Gladys and given in this post again. It is a good one. It asks, "But why should we be afraid?" That is an inspiring comment. It speaks of the greater message of forgiveness.

OT, you and Gladys and I have an identity greater than that of national or civil politics. You know that. Everyone who takes the name of Jesus shares it. And yes there are others on here who take that name who are very different to you and I (I shall not mention their names). They think differently, they live differently, but if they tell the story of Jesus I shall walk with them. If the righteous judge makes a different decision, that is his right and I shall stand corrected, until then, I'll leave you with a vision statement which captured my heart. It's from the Cincinnati Vineyard Church Website. It reminds me of the sermon on the mount:

"Imagine a ragtag collection of surrendered and transformed people who love God and others. They are mesmerized by the idea that this is not about them, but all about Jesus. They are transfixed by His story and His heart for their city.
They are seedthrowers and firestarters, hope peddlers and grace-givers, risktakers and dreamers, young and old. They link arms with anyone who tells the story of Jesus. They empower the poor, strengthen the weak, embrace the outcast, seek the lost. They serve together, play together, worship together, live life together. Their city will change because God sent them."

Such an idea captured my heart many many years ago because such people once embraced me. It's good, I like it, I'm sure that it resonates with you too. Am I one of these 'surrendered' and 'transformed' people yet? No, not really, but I'm learning, at least I hope I'm learning.

And you know what, I'm sure that in the end we actually both agree.

One more thing which may help you understand where I'm coming from. If you run a search for Vineyard Community Church Cincinnati and check out the 'What we Believe' page via 'About Us' you'll read something that I find to be persuasive.

All the best.

Hi Orthodox Tradition,

No, I am not just having a laugh. I take faith quite seriously and think it has a legitimate place in public debate.

You write,

'Gladys, (and Peter) I find it very hard to understand how you can argue in support of Christians supporting civil partnerships on the one hand.... but then find it unbiblical for Christians to be involved in politics.'

I don't think it is unbiblical for Christians to be involved in politics, sorry if you got that impression.

I think the new testament is a profoundly political document, though I think its major message is justice for all, and preferential treatment for the poor and marginalised.

I was brought up in an evangelical tradition so I do take the bible seriously, but I don't believe everything in it is meant to be read literally. I am open to competing interpretations.

OT

You're lumping Peter and Gladys together, and I'm not sure that's helpful to discussion. Gladys has an evangelical background, Peter is an evangelical.

I can't help feeling that you've totally misread Peter on a number of issues. I'm not sure why this has happened. I suppose it's one of the dangers of online discussions.

Peter's a bit more open to Confessionalist Protestantism than I am. That seems to be the only difference we have theologically. And outside the age of the earth, and whether the ***term*** inerrancy is useful, I don't think you and I have huge theological and ethical differences.

GV

What is Confessionalist Protestantism?

Parrhasios

Right, sorry, should have explained a little more.

Theologically there isn't a huge divide.
Evangelicals have Pietist roots (like it or not), and emphasise the need for personal conversion, regeneration and so forth. There is a strong emphasis on personal decision and experience in Christian conversion.

(some) Conservative Lutheran and Reformed Churches tend to be irritated with the dominance of what they call "conversionism" in conservative Protestantism. Faith is never a decision, need not be a sudden decisive experience and is deeply mysterious. (It's a move back to the Reformers theology before the Pietists got their mits on it, I suppose. It's odd how many "Banner of Truth" types don't realise the distance that they've moved from Calvin.)
Faith is, of course saving trust, not mere assent. But the Church plays a stronger role in producing faith, as the person receives the sacraments and listens to the Word. So evangelism consists largely in "Churching" people.

That's, roughly, the difference. Most of the big "evangelical" names who moved to Roman Catholicism left Confessionalism, as it turns out (Peter Kreeft for example).
Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, as Peter simply expressed in conversation greater sympathy for 'Confessionalists' than I would have. But I don't write off Confessionalists *at all*. (DG Hart, who wrote "Deconstructing Evangelicalism", is a strong confessionalist, and he teaches at Westmisnster Theological College. There's a lot of common ground). Peter Morrow's as Evangelical as I am. (Which is to say if he's not, I'm not).

GV

err PM, GV

Where I suggest that that fear should be a motivating factor in political engagement?

I know Gladys doesnt see it that way.


GV, where did I ever mention the term innerancy? I hope you're not putting words in my mouth! Dont know if I have ever argued that, and dont know if I could define that.


Peter, I will go with you as far as I can.

I believe the core business of the church is communion with God, loving God, loving our neighbours, in community etc.

I embrace the vineyard thing without reservation.

I also agree the church was never meant to be a pressure group. No question.

I accept that you see the church has no credibility for political engagement. I know Gladys and I see it differently, but no problem.

(fyi Wilberforce and his Christians had so little credibilty they only got their anti-slavery legislation passed after many many years, through STEALTH.)

But if you are going to say the church should not engage politically then I know Gladys and I will see it differently.

The way I see it, you have not been able to reconcile your "no credibility" argument with the bible nor Church history. You have not even made a half hearted effort to try. That is your right and I respect your emphasis. It is not your area, I would guess. Nothing wrong with that.

Sure the church of Acts and most of the church across the world had no power or influence. Doesnt scare me in the slightest.

I see it very likely happening again in the UK. No problem.

Didnt stop the early church. at all.

What I say Peter is that if the church totally resigns from the political sphere it is needlessly surrendering salt and light from a major part of the world.

I suggest it is a dereliction of duty of the church to surrender any part of the "secular" world to darkness without a "fight".

I guess I am on common ground with Gladys here, but I am not sure because I dont know her.

However I suspect that Peter and I may have more in common on "spiritual" issues.

I get the impression, Gladys, that you dont ncessarily hold to any traditional view of scripture nor the resurrection and that you find civil partnerships etc potentially quite acceptable within the Christian tradition; an observation, not a criticism.

I will be glad to be put right and I have no problem accepting people of any creed and none. It does tend to test what you think it right, as Peter says, and I do think that is quite constructive.

So overall, I guess I see the main thrust of what you are both arguing ref politics and church as complimentary in a biblical context.

I know we have debated this point at length Peter and to be honest, you dont even try to reconcile the biblical and historical conflicts with your preference. No problem.

I am getting the conclusion that you have no heart/vision/interest in political engagement and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it just isnt your bag - but I know you're great on community.

Maybe that has been the sticking point. You aint called to it.
So long as you don't argue that there are spheres of public life into which parts of the church in its broadest sense should never intrude, there is no difference between our views at all.

GV - come on break the habit of a lifetime and stop correcting me.

Let's hear your view instead; Is the Church's engagement in politics biblical or not and to what extent?

OT

You know Graham, that's a summary I can pretty much live with.

Yes, evangelicals have Pietist roots and one of the results is that we evangelicals emphasise the individual and individual experience (or personal relationship with Jesus, if you like) at the expense of community. I agree too that one of the outcomes of this is an emphasis on conversionism, but if someone were to ask me, "When did you become a Christian?" I'd say, "Actually, I don't know." Of course some people might think that means I'm not a Christian, but for me it's not about a single point of faith, or a decision I make, it is rather a matter of living by faith, of responding to a story greater than me and the God who makes himself known in that story. Sometimes that starts small and grows, sometimes it might be the result of a crisis, sometimes its shaky, but I think of it as a direction I face rather than a once in time decision or conversion. And yes, it's more from the Confessional Reformed tradition, and yes, it emphasises 'church' or community at least as much as the individual. Not many might know that Calvin used the term 'mother' to describe the church!

Put it this way, if someone shows up on a Sunday, sings the hymns, takes communion, and so on as far as I'm concerned they're 'in' (unless of course they rule themselves out). To me this is as realistic and as honourable as accepting someone's word that they 'asked Jesus into their heart.' or some other evangelical formula. Why should one set of evangelical words, mean more than another set? For me, the participating in the sacraments and listening to the 'Word' are as much an act of faith as praying a 'sinners' prayer.

I'll develop the idea though as it might explain some of what may be perceived as inconsistency on my part.

It's all very well using terms like Evangelical or Catholic or Reformed, but the reality is that most of us have been influenced by many streams within the church. Am I 'Reformed'? Yes, but I've also read and learned from Jean Guyon, the French Quietist, and Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton, both Roman Catholics. I appreciate written historical confessions and also the spontaneous exuberance of Charismatic churches, or their reflective personal (almost mystical) worship. I've learned social justice from the Mennonite tradition, theology from conservative colleges like Westminster and yes, even (although I like to be cynical and deconstructive about it cos it's deconstructive about everyone else!) 'authenticity' from the emergent tradition (yea, it's a tradition!!). The truth is I'm not any one thing and my view is that generally each tradition has something to learn from the other. In short the Kingdom is bigger than I thought it was when I was sitting in Sunday School.

If I was asked to write a 'Statement of Faith' I bet it would pass the test of most conservative evangelicals; but 'Statements of Faith'’ need to live not languish on a dusty shelf. I think faith needs to be seen in the common mundane tasks of love and sacrifice as well as Sunday worship. In many ways faith is normal life turned Godward rather than 'me-ward'.

There's one more thing that I'd emphasise that I'm learning.

I'm learning that perhaps the church needs to welcome people who say they don't know Jesus, and yes people who don't care about Jesus. We mustn't insist that people first convert before they join our community. Sometimes (perhaps always) people need to learn what a group or organisation is before they can 'throw their lot in' with it, and it is my view that we can risk more by way of loving and welcoming people simply because they are people and not because they've signed up to or adhere to our preferred doctrine.

And there was, I think, the start of a discussion on the idea that perhaps Ancient Israel was such a non-religious, religious community, on another thread.

err PM, GV

Where I suggest that that fear should be a motivating factor in political engagement?

I know Gladys doesnt see it that way.


GV, where did I ever mention the term innerancy? I hope you're not putting words in my mouth! Dont know if I have ever argued that, and dont know if I could define that.


Peter, I will go with you as far as I can.

I believe the core business of the church is communion with God, loving God, loving our neighbours, in community etc.

I embrace the vineyard thing without reservation.

I also agree the church was never meant to be a pressure group. No question.

I accept that you see the church has no credibility for political engagement. I know Gladys and I see it differently, but no problem.

(fyi Wilberforce and his Christians had so little credibilty they only got their anti-slavery legislation passed after many many years, through STEALTH.)

But if you are going to say the church should not engage politically then I know Gladys and I will see it differently.

The way I see it, you have not been able to reconcile your "no credibility" argument with the bible nor Church history. You have not even made a half hearted effort to try. That is your right and I respect your emphasis. It is not your area, I would guess. Nothing wrong with that.

Sure the church of Acts and most of the church across the world had no power or influence. Doesnt scare me in the slightest.

I see it very likely happening again in the UK. No problem.

Didnt stop the early church. at all.

What I say Peter is that if the church totally resigns from the political sphere it is needlessly surrendering salt and light from a major part of the world.

I suggest it is a dereliction of duty of the church to surrender any part of the "secular" world to darkness without a "fight".

I guess I am on common ground with Gladys here, but I am not sure because I dont know her.

However I suspect that Peter and I may have more in common on "spiritual" issues.

I get the impression, Gladys, that you dont ncessarily hold to any traditional view of scripture nor the resurrection and that you find civil partnerships etc potentially quite acceptable within the Christian tradition; an observation, not a criticism.

I will be glad to be put right and I have no problem accepting people of any creed and none. It does tend to test what you think it right, as Peter says, and I do think that is quite constructive.

So overall, I guess I see the main thrust of what you are both arguing ref politics and church as complimentary in a biblical context.

I know we have debated this point at length Peter. I am getting the conclusion that you have no heart/vision/interest in political engagement and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't argue that there are spheres of public life into which parts of the church in its broadest sense should never intrude.


GV - come on break the habit of a lifetime and stop correcting me.

Let's hear your view instead; Is the Church's engagement in politics biblical or not?

OT

OT

You've addressed a couple of comments to me so I'll address you here.

1) Over on "OT 1" you wrote
"I guess theology is so much your thing you could spend weeks discussing it with people who hold radically unbiblical ideas, find it a fascinating education and not cause you any problem.

I am addressing the same points from the perspective of the casual reader who does not bear any similarity to you whatsoever."

I think that's fair. I'd just add that professionally I am obliged to make students aware of a variety of viewpoints. And up until now I haven't taken an honest look at liberal views of the Old Testament. And students do ask "What do people who disagree with you think King David was like?"It's best to be prepared.
I also get asked questions like "was Winston Churchill black?", "why do ghosts smear blood on walls? " and "why will Christians only allow homosexual relationships in a Church?" But there's not much you can do to prepare for questions like that.

I know you're a Bahnsen fan. So your response is to begin with Hayes presuppositions. That's fair strategy as I see it, as long as folk pick up that it's her Presuppositions and not her integrity that you're questioning.
But I'm not a Presuppositionalist. (In fact I think that Westminster Theological Seminary Presuppositionalists are a bit of a disaster, but what do I know? Each to their own, let a thousand flowers bloom and all that). So I do see value in engaging with Dr Hayes and co.

2) "break the habit of a lifetime and stop correcting me"

Stop saying things I disagree with then (: In fairness I've taken your side on lots of issues. At the same time I thought your attack on the W&T blog over Polanski was inaccurate and unfair. So I said so.

3) Inerrancy - let's just say that I might guess that you belong to a Church that takes that sort of doctrine seriously. I'd quibble a little. But not much. Maybe my guess is off target. If so, apologies.

4) "Is the Church's engagement in politics biblical or not?" It depends. If you mean following Wilberforce's thinking, I'm with you. I'm not up for a retreat into self-contained communities, a la Hauerwas.

5) "err PM, GV Where I suggest that that fear should be a motivating factor in political engagement?"

I don't think I accused you of that. I haven't followed your discussion with Peter in detail. Maybe he has. Take it up with him.

I do think that some of the abuse levelled at you in the past - assuming you are a certain person - has tended towards the personal. And if you recall, I said so.

Anyhow, you used to love a scrap. What's up at the moment?

GV

OT

Are you a Bahnsen fan? I presume Greg Bahnsen?

Actually I don't mind the presuppositional approach to apologetics, unlike Graham I do think it has something to offer, but I definitely draw a line at the whole theonomy thing. (But I guess you know that already)

:-)


And just for clarity, I wasn't saying we should be motivated by fear.

GV

Who is Bahnsen? Never heard of him. Why bring him up?

You dont need to justify your interest in the course.

It is interesting.

I aint condemning anyone.

Like you say, I'm just highlighting the implicit assumptions and parameters of the course so people who aint as smart as you know what they are getting into.

And no, I wouldnt assume improper motives for Hayes. You just can't.

Ref Polanski. You forget that some 3-4 other people voiced similar concerns to me and I just weighed in behind them. You didnt hear the BBC profile interview with the poet afterwards did you? Lets just say Iris would have jumped at such treatment.


Graham so many people make so many assumptions about people here.

I dont do inerrancy because emergent pedants love to crucify people on it.

I believe what I believe and its good enough for me and I know when people hate Bereans.

By far my main engagement with you is undoubtedly you correcting me Graham.

And Im the one who gets accused of being a tick-box-statement-of-faith centred bibliolator pedant!

Work that one out.

Projection I'd call it.


Once again you wrongly assume who you think I am.

How can a serious scholar engage in so many assumptions so easily?

:)

Is that back on scrapping form for you ok?

:)

OT

Hi Orthodox Tradition,

You write,

"I get the impression, Gladys, that you dont ncessarily hold to any traditional view of scripture nor the resurrection and that you find civil partnerships etc potentially quite acceptable within the Christian tradition; an observation, not a criticism."

Fair enough observation!

A 'traditional view' of scripture can be quite tricky to pin down though. I am sure that means different things to Calvinists, Lutherans, etc etc.

There is also a view out there that the quite literal readings of the bible that we have come to associate with some form of evangelicalism is actually a very modern development, and that our pre-modern Christian forebears actually read the bible much more metaphorically and symbolically than might be assumed.

Karen Armstrong's recent book explores this point in some detail, if that is of interest to you. The book is called 'The Case for God,' an odd title, considering that's not really what the book is about. It is more about different ways Christians have conceived of God over time, I would say, not whether he exists or not. (I suspect the title may have been chosen to appeal to the never-ending Dawkins-sparked 'is there a God' market ...)

Orthodox Tradition

On the reference to Bahnsen.

My mistake - I confused you with Rev JMark who posted here in the distant past. (See the "Shameless Pluggery" thread of September 2008).

We discussed presuppositions (and I mentioned Bahnsen) a few months later in the context of creationism. Somehow the two of you got muddled in my memory. He signed his posts "Mark", and was a Pastor. So it's obviously crazy and inexcusable to get the two of you mixed up. I didn't notice the "J" until I did a quick 'google' there.

In any case, it *was* a mistake on my part, and I apologise.

GV

Graham, you wrote

"My mistake - I confused you with Rev JMark who posted here in the distant past."

I think you may have been mixing up people with another pastor posting here:

https://bbcib.blogspot.com/2008/06/hi-im-pastor-mark.html

If you look for the word 'mild' near the bottom of that page then it should all become clear to you.

"our pre-modern Christian forebears actually read the bible much more metaphorically and symbolically than might be assumed..."

Well, yes. Let's look at the four types of meaning that Christian interpreters from Augustine to Luther looked for in scriptutre.Literal, anagogical, tropological and analogical.
Let's take anagogical and tropological. "Tropological" just meant that they looked for the 'moral' of the tale. "Anagogical" looked for theological or spiritual lessons in the tale.
"Analogical" meaning arises as the literal referents of the words in the text "lambs", "lions", "sun" are party of another book - the 'book of nature'.Now the mediaevals believed that the parts of nature had a clear meaning as a divine author lay behind the world. We learn courage from lions, sacrifice from pelicans (who pricked their breasts to feed their young according to the mediaevals).
Francis Bacon was one of the post-reformation thinkers who pointed out that there was no clear consensus on the meaning of these parts of nature. Therefore the book of nature only clearly revealed God's majesty and power. It had no moral or theological meaning that *we could clearly discern*. So empirical observers were to be freed from the task of being moralists.
Anagogical, tropological and analogical meanings were also inferred *with* the literal (grammtico-historical) meaning. And again the lack of consensus on anagogical, tropological and analogical meanings meant that the Reformers after Luther wanted to give preference to Grammatico-Historical meanings. (Luther was still open to anagogical and tropological interpretation.)
There was a clear mediaeval 'science' of scriptural interpretation (based on quite rational presuppositions about God's intentions). It was never a case of "anything goes". And this science broke down when it seemed to descend into a meaningless truisms, or into claims that could not be justified.
I'm also not sure what follows from different interpretations of God. Certainly not the creative anti-realism endorsed by Armstrong. Richard Swinburne and Paul Helm, Alvin Plantinga and Brian Davies markedly in their interpretations of immutability, eternality omniscience etc. Yet they agree that they are referring to the same referent - the Christian God. And they agree that they are unpacking the same concepts - those of "Perfect Being" theology.

[As an aside, Armstrong used to have a mantra that drove me up the wall. According to the Fathers "God does not exist" she would intone "He is eternal". Which sounds great until you understand that 'existence' was a lesser category than pure "being" in ancient metaphysics. Phew! Glad I got that out of my system.lol!]

Now unless some conclusive argument exists to show that they're mistaken (and I'd love to know where anti realists are hiding this argument) a principle of charity in interpretation would lead me to believe that these writers have not misunderstood each other.
I just don't see any mileage in treatises that tell us how (not) to talk about God. A better account of religious antirealism can be found at Peter Liptons site - https://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/people/lipton/

under 'Science and Religion: The Immersion Solution'.

It avoids the hermeneutical morass. Obviously I'm not convinced, but it would be a better approach than the type of thinking that characterises "post-orthodoxy" -or whatever we're currently "post". I've lost track! (;

GV

OT

It was good to see you back on scrapping form, by the way, and the return of the smileys.
And I'm pretty durn dumb, and I'm not a scholar. And you've read pretty widely from what I can gather.
As for correcting you, check the "vegetarian" thread. I am not anti OT. Beyond that we've exchanged views on Young Earth Creationism, and that's it.
You growl, I growl back.

GV

(-: